Please wait a few moments while we process your request
Please wait...

Frances Dyson, And then it was now

Art and Technology

Automation House, The New York Times, 1970
Automation House, The New York Times, 1970 Automation House, The New York Times, 1970
Automation meets Arts

The Move to Automation House


Just as the Pavilion had been shrouded in a fog of ephemeral artistic ideals that hampered its visibility, Theodore Kheel's vision of the alliance between E.A.T. and the American Foundation on Automation and Employment, Incorporated (of which he was President) was cloudy at best. The basic dilemma of artists using technology — especially to critique a, by now, technologically laden and dependent culture — was repeated, only this time in the context of workers using technology. At a press conference for E.A.T. held on October 10 1967, Kheel described The American Foundation on Automation and Employment as “a non-profit organization whose aims are to encourage the use of automation by solving the employment problems it creates and to demonstrate what labor and management can accomplish.” According to the press release, the objectives of the two organizations were: “to maintain a constructive climate for the recognition of the new technology and the arts by a civilized collaboration between groups unrealistically developing in isolation,” to eliminate “the separation of the individual from technological change and to expand and enrich technology to give the individual variety, pleasure and avenues for exploration and involvement in contemporary life.” Kheel's motives and sentiments were remarkably similar to both Klüver's and Rauschenberg's: “Our two organizations have similar objectives: we welcome the new technology and the contribution it can make in providing individuals with new opportunities for self-fulfillment. The new technology must and will go forward. The individual must be part of it, not an impediment.” (1)

Indeed, Kheel's emphasis on eliminating the separation — one might say the alienation — of the individual from technological change for the purposes of self-fulfillment, also signalled a shift in Klüver’s thinking. In a press release issued presumably after Kheel’s announcement, Klüver indicated a disengagement from purely artistic concerns: “E.A.T. is not organized for the benefit of the artist. Experiments in Art and Technology in a real sense is a revolutionary process to catalyze the individual’s responsibility for the shaping of the new technology. We can no longer claim innocence for the human and social consequences resulting from technological change. [...] This responsibility implies the search for a technology directed towards pleasure and enjoyment. [I]t implies the elimination of the distinction between work and leisure.” (2)

As his letter to Donald Kendell (April 8, 1970) demonstrated (3), Klüver was well aware of the unique position the artist occupied with regard to the corporate world.

One year later (April 1971), in “Cable Television and the Artist,” Klüver outlines the rationale for artists’ involvement in television:

“Traditionally, the artist’s role has been to break through institutionalized aesthetic barriers, and he has expanded and enriched the use of any medium in which he has become involved. [...] The developing cable system must be able to respond to the input of artists such as John Cage, Yvonne Rainer, Alexander Calder, Frank Stella, Robert Creeley, Nam June Paik and their colleagues […] Traditionally, the artist operates in a legal, institutional and value structure of his own which is different from some standard practices in the rest of society, [and] some of the peculiarities of which are recognized by law: works of art can be imported duty free, even if they are made of taxable materials; a serious work of art is not subject to the usual standards of obscenity laws. The artist does not copyright his work; he has no control over it after it is sold, except that it cannot be changed. The artist takes his material from his environment and is not required to get permission or pay for rights — Andy Warhol’s Brillo Boxes is a famous example. Further, if the work of one artist is clearly derivitive (sic) of the work of another, he is dismissed as a bad artist. ” (4)

Frances Dyson © 2006 FDL

(1) [Press Conference for E.A.T. / Experiments in Art and Technology] (October 10, 1967, press release), [1] p. The Daniel Langlois Foundation for Art, Science, and Technology, Collection of Documents Published by Experiments in Art and Technology. EAT C3-12; 55.

(2) Ibid.

(3) [Letter to Donald M. Kendall / Billy Klüver] (April 8, 1970), [3] p. The Daniel Langlois Foundation for Art, Science, and Technology, Collection of Documents Published by Experiments in Art and Technology. EAT C9-14 / 3; 175.

(4) Cable Television And the Artist: Statement Prepared for the Sloan Commission on Cable Communications / Experiments in Art and Technology (April 1971), [4] p. The Daniel Langlois Foundation for Art, Science, and Technology, Collection of Documents Published by Experiments in Art and Technology. EAT C12-12 / 3 ; 227.